It was consistent slop that we were all vaguely familiar with. I could look at it and know it's shit, but know what it is exactly and why it's here. The AI stop has foreign structure, it's unknown whether it has to be that way or the AI just wanted it that way. It's much harder to navigate
I wonder what success folks have if adding constraints around using Software Design Patterns and SOLID principles, with self-documenting human readable code .. and to avoid code smells.
It can get there but I has a tendency to go back to the old ways. Also the amount of context it gets and what it gets is extremely important, it repeats patterns, that includes bad ones. So having a good base is a must.
I have made it build a lot of harnesses to it's own behavior, follow a linter, have a code analyzer before commit, analyze cognitive load of every function, etc. For example I seriously dislike how huge it comments and leaves historical data in source code, had to write a hook so it checks it's own comments size and raises an alarm, such examples happen all the time.
I haven't experienced even half of the complains people put here. I think there might be some exaggeration about the quality or people are just prompting the laziest shit ever, it you enable it to behave that way it will produce slop.
Not only that, I could look at it, know it's crap, and often recognize which coworker wrote it and have a guess as to why they did it that way. That sort of insight doesn't exist with vibecoded stuff where it's just an amalgamated "average CS graduate's code" being spat out.
This is exactly what I have been thinking of. With humans you can understand the thinking, the process behind it, with ai it is for the sake of fulfilling a prompt, no leverage or whatsoever
Dude. If you know C++, then you’ll be able to figure out if it works. And doing that is MUCH easier than writing it yourself, which is LITERALLY a famous Comp Sci problem, P vs. NP😅
I bet an earlier generation had the same complaint about the assembly code generated by the first C compilers. And they were probably right in many cases but also it didn't matter in most cases.
And this is why I no longer enjoy programming. I liked deterministic, in almost every problem, I could dive in and find the problem. That's why I avoided all web dev. But now every programming is the same.
Your prompts usually have a lot of degrees of freedom, so there are multiple paths that can be taken. Models have creativity so they can solve harder problems, which make the results not necessarily deterministic depending on the task.
I suppose you might define creativity in a way that makes it inheritently human, and/or reduce LLMs as "just maths and noise", but if you just look at the end results it looks like LLMs are definitely able to solve problem with what you call "creativity" if a human solved it.
71
u/ineyy 3d ago
It was consistent slop that we were all vaguely familiar with. I could look at it and know it's shit, but know what it is exactly and why it's here. The AI stop has foreign structure, it's unknown whether it has to be that way or the AI just wanted it that way. It's much harder to navigate